March 3, 2023

Clear Recon Corp.

601 West 1st Avenue, Suite 1400
Spokane, Washington 99201

Re: Trustee Sale (095476-WA) of the following described real property scheduled to
occur on March 24, 2023:
Lot 14, Rivendell Estates as per the map thereof recorded in Volume 14
of plat, page 80, records of Whatcom County, Washington. APN#400630-
168005-0000.
(hereafter referred to as the Real Property)

Via priority U.S. Mail to above address and email at: [email protected]

Dear Trustee:

I represent Church of the Gardens (Church) and Alvin White and Kimberly
Rojo (Property Owners) with regard to the property located 7712 Silver Lake Road,
Maple Falls, Washington 98266, for which you have scheduled a trustee sale to occur
on March 24, 2023. I have attached hereto as Exhibit 1 a copy of the Church’s mission
statement. Property Owners are the legal owners of the Real Property reference
above.

On behalf of Church of the Gardens and Property Owners, I request that you
delay or cancel the trustee sale of the real property because my clients have elected
to have the judicial inquiries implicated by this matter resolved by the superior court.
See Larson v. Snohomish Cty., 20 Wn. App. 2d 243, 284-85, 499 P.3d 957, 981 (2021).
The Court of Appeals held in Larson that the DTA does not violate Wash. Const. Art
IV, sec. 6 because:
Clear Recon Corp.
March 3, 2023
Page 2

The DTA preserves the superior court's jurisdiction by giving a borrower

the right to file an action in superior court to restrain the sale, RCW
61.24.130(1), granting the borrower the power to initiate court action,
RCW 61.24.040(2), and granting the borrower the right to request a
court to decide the reasonableness of fees a lender demands before
reinstating the mortgage. RCW 61.24.090(2). We conclude that the
legislature had the authority to enact the DTA and its enactment does
not encroach on the jurisdiction of the superior court.

Among those judicial inquiries my clients want to litigate are those related to
the sale’s compliance with the statutory predicates set forth in RCW 61.24.030.
Accordingly, without waiving any other legal or equitable obligations that you (or
those who are paying for you to perform these trustee/adjudicative services) may have
in this matter, my clients respectfully request that this contractual forum (i.e., the
purported trustee claimed to be the successor trustee) demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence:

(1) That you, as trustee, are entitled to rely on the beneficiary's

declaration as proof that the beneficiary is the holder of the deed
of trust under the circumstances of this sale;
(2) That there has been a default in a loan obligation owed by the
Property Owners to the purported original lender. See RCW
61.24.030; and
(3) The specific amount supported by the loan account of the
purported default owed to the current purported beneficiary.

RCW 61.24.030(7)

RCW 61.24.030(7) provides:

It shall be a requisite to a trustee’s sale:

* * *
(7)(a) That, for residential real property …, before the notice of trustee’s
sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof
that the beneficiary is the holder of any promissory note or other
obligation secured by the deed of trust. A declaration by the
beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the
beneficiary is the holder of any promissory note or other obligation
Clear Recon Corp.
March 3, 2023
Page 3

secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under

this subsection.

My clients dispute that the “beneficiary declaration” which you have relied on
is sufficient proof under the circumstances related to this sale. This is because at the
time the applicable promissory note was executed, the common business practice
among those entities originally obtaining such signed original instruments was to
destroy them in favor of keeping only an electronic copy. See e.g., Statement by
Florida Bankers Association submitted to the Florida Supreme Court1, which
explains that in the years leading up to the Great Recession, the common practice
was to destroy signed original instruments, like the one claimed by you to be in the
possession of the beneficiary.

The reason “many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative
pleading in the complaint” is because the physical document was
deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its
conversion to an electronic file. See State Street Bank and Trust Company
v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Electronic storage is almost
universally acknowledged as safer, more efficient and less expensive
than maintaining the originals in hard copy, which bears the
concomitant costs of physical indexing, archiving and maintaining
security. It is a standard in the industry and becoming the benchmark of
modern efficiency across the spectrum of commerce—including the court
system.

Exhibit 2, p.4.

I have attached hereto as Exhibit 3 a preliminary report I obtained from

Jamie Heron which sets forth facts indicating that the promissory note the purported
beneficiary has provided the trustee with regard to this property is not the original
signed instrument. Mr. Heron has extensive experience and knowledge with regard
to Countrywide's practices in this regard. See e.g., United States ex rel. Heron v.
Nationstar Mortg. LLC, Civil Action No. 17-cv-03084-PAB-STV, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 175182 (D. Colo. Sep. 15, 2021).

1
Hereafter referred to as Exhibit 2 and accessible at the following Government website:
https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/328731/file/09-1460_093009_Comments%20
(FBA).pdf
Clear Recon Corp.
March 3, 2023
Page 4

Furthermore, it is my clients’ position that under these circumstances,

property owners must be given an opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption
created by the declaration that the purported beneficiary possesses the note where
evidence is submitted that this purported beneficiary does not possess the signed
original note. See e.g., W. & Atl. R.R. v. Henderson, 279 U.S. 639, 642, 49 S. Ct. 445,
447, 73 L.Ed. 884, 888 (1929). Cf. Tacoma v. O'Brien, 85 Wn.2d 266, 271-72, 534 P.2d
114, 116-17 (1975). Case law also demonstrates that Countrywide’s practice was not
to keep original notes signed by their makers. e.g., MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 412, (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Your clients have not proved that there has been a default.

My clients intend to litigate in court, pursuant to their constitutional and

statutory right to do so, that the purported beneficiary’s inability to present facts
demonstrating on a more likely than not basis that it possesses the original note is
also evidence that there has been no default. My clients expect to present testimony
from a plethora of experts in this regard. I would be happy to provide you with those
reports once they become available.

Property Owners acknowledge that RCW 61.24.130(1) states in pertinent part:

Nothing contained in this chapter shall prejudice the right of the

borrower, grantor, any guarantor, or any person who has an interest in,
lien, or claim of lien against the property or some part thereof, to restrain,
on any proper legal or equitable ground, a trustee's sale. The court shall
require as a condition of granting the restraining order or injunction that
the applicant pay to the clerk of the court the sums that would be due on
the obligation secured by the deed of trust if the deed of trust was not
being foreclosed:...

In an effort to get the sale canceled or postponed, Property Owners are willing
to negotiate with you and your clients the amount of a periodic payment they will pay
until they have an opportunity to litigate whether the payment of any amount is
appropriate under the circumstances existing here, which include the failure of the
purported beneficiary to prove the existence of the loan and possession of the signed
Note.
Clear Recon Corp.
March 3, 2023
Page 5

Please get back to me as soon as you can so we can get the sale put off. If my
clients are forced to seek court intervention to stop the sale, they will seek their costs
in having to do so.

Very truly yours,

s/ Scott E. Stafne .
Scott E. Stafne
WSBA #6964

Enclosure

SS/jp
Exhibit 1
 MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of “Church Of the Gardens” is:

1) to proclaim the truth about God as we understand it;

2) to promote personal growth and development by applying principles of gardening

to life;

3) to promote use of resources for creation and healing;

4) to minister to and protect those in need such as the hungry, the sick, the poor, the
homeless, the indebted, the enslaved, the vulnerable, and all others who are unfairly
prevented from exercising their inalienable God-given natural rights;

5) to harvest and distribute natural and organic foods and treatments for the
benefit of all;

6) to promote social, spiritual, and economic opportunity worldwide;

7) to affiliate with other churches and faith based organizations to promote truth;

8) to train, develop, and support leaders in our communities, nations, and world as
called for in our beliefs;

9) to demonstrate, using words only when necessary, our beliefs worldwide;

10) to act consistently with these beliefs privately and publicly;

11) to engage in activities necessary for the accomplishment of the mission; and

12) to oppose all, which by design or through corruption, are inimical to the church’s
mission;

As a part of its mission the Church of the Gardens, through its members, will engage in free
speech, free assembly, and free exercise of religion to promote religious, spiritual, social, and
political strategies through worship and education of people, governments, and institutions.
Exhibit 2
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 09-1460

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO RULES

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND FORMS FOR USE
WITH RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

COMMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BANKERS ASSOCIATION

The Florida Bankers Association thanks this Honorable Court for the

opportunity to comment on the Emergency Rule and Form Proposals of the

Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases.

Introduction:

The Florida Bankers Association ("FBA") is one of Florida's oldest trade

association. Its membership is composed of more than 300 banks and financial

institutions ranging in size from small community banks and thrifts, to medium

sized banks operating in several parts of the state, to large regional financial

institutions headquartered in Florida or outside the state. The FBA serves its

constituents and the citizens of the state of Florida by serving as an industry

resource to all branches and levels of government in addressing those issues which

affect the delivery of financial services within this state.

{O1456895;1}
 SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS

The Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases

("Task Force") proposes an amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110 to

require verification of residential mortgage foreclosure complaints. The proposed

rule does not effectuate its stated goal of deterring plaintiffs that are not entitled to

enforce the underlying obligation from bringing foreclosure actions. Existing and

effective law provides better substantive protection against unauthorized

foreclosure suits. Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, establishes stringent proof

standards when the original note is not available, and requires the court to protect

the mortgagor against additional foreclosure actions. In addition, the courts have

ample authority to sanction lawyers and lenders asserting improper foreclosure

claims. This authority is explicit in Florida law and implicit in the courts' inherent

power to sanction bad faith litigation. Finally, the proposed amendment imposes a

substantive condition precedent to foreclosing a residential mortgage foreclosures

and thus appears to violate Florida's constitutional doctrine of separation of

powers.

COMMENTS

I. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL NOT EFFECTUATE THE

DESIRED GOAL.

The rationale for the proposed amendment is set forth in the proposal for

promulgation:

{O1456895;1} 2
 This rule change is recommended because of the new economic
reality dealing with mortgage foreclosure cases in an era of
securitization. Frequently, the note has been transferred on multiple
occasions prior to the default and filing of the foreclosure. Plaintiff's
status as owner and holder of the note at the time of filing has become a
significant issue in these case, particularly because many firms file lost
note counts as a standard alternative pleading in the complaint. There
have been situations where two different plaintiffs have filed suit on the
same note at the same time. Requiring the plaintiff to verify its
ownership of the note at the time of filing provides incentive to review
and ensures that the filing is accurate, ensures that investigation has been
made and that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note. This
requirement will reduce confusion and give the trial judges the authority
to sanction those who file without assuring themselves of their authority
to do so.

With respect and appreciation for the efforts of the Task Force and its

laudable goals, the proposed amendment will not effectuate the reduction of

confusion or give trial judges any authority they currently lack.

A. Plaintiff's Status as Owner and Holder of the Note.

In actual practice, confusion over who owns and holds the note stems less

from the fact that the note may have been transferred multiple times than it does

from the form in which the note is transferred. It is a reality of commerce that

virtually all paper documents related to a note and mortgage are converted to

electronic files almost immediately after the loan is closed. Individual loans, as

electronic data, are compiled into portfolios which are transferred to the secondary

market, frequently as mortgage-backed securities. The records of ownership and

payment are maintained by a servicing agent in an electronic database.

{O1456895;1} 3
 The reason "many firms file lost note counts as a standard alternative

pleading in the complaint" is because the physical document was deliberately

eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic

file. See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2003). Electronic storage is almost universally acknowledged as safer, more

efficient and less expensive than maintaining the originals in hard copy, which

bears the concomitant costs of physical indexing, archiving and maintaining

security. It is a standard in the industry and becoming the benchmark of modern

efficiency across the spectrum of commerce—including the court system.

The information reviewed to verify the plaintiff's authority to commence the

mortgage foreclosure action will be drawn from the same database that includes

the electronic document and the record of the event of default. The verification,

made "to the best of [the signing record custodian's] knowledge and belief" will not

resolve the need to establish the lost document.

B. The Process for Re-Establishing the Note Provides Significant

Substantive Protection to the Mortgagor.

The process for re-establishment of a lost or destroyed instrument by law

imposes a strict burden of proof and instructs the court to protect the obligor from

multiple suits on the same instrument. Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, sets

forth the elements a plaintiff must prove in order to enforce an obligation for which

it does not have the original instrument:

{O1456895;1} 4
 A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the
instrument if:

a) person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the

instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly
acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to
enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.

b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or
a lawful seizure; and

c) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument

because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be
determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or
a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

Once the plaintiff has plead and proved the foregoing, there is an additional

judicial requirement:

The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking
enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the
instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by
reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument.
Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

§ 673.3091(2), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). 1 This protection may be effectuated by

any means satisfactory to the court. It commonly takes the form of a provision in

the final judgment stating that to the extent any obligation of the note is later

deemed not to have been extinguished by merger into the final judgment, the

plaintiff has by law accepted assignment of those obligations. In other words, the

1
The legislature amended Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes, in 2004 to address
the issues raised by the State Street court in recognition of the commercial reality
that almost all purchase money notes are electronically stored and assigned in
electronic form.

{O1456895;1} 5
plaintiff who enforces a lost or destroyed instrument assumes the risk that a third

party in lawful possession of the original note or with a superior interest therein

will assert that claim. The original obligor has no liability.

C. Courts Have Statutory and Inherent Authority to Sanction Plaintiffs

Asserting Claims Not Supported by Law or Evidence.

Any party seeking to foreclose a mortgage without a good faith belief—

based on investigation reasonable under the circumstances--in the facts giving rise

to the asserted claim may be sanctioned "upon the court's initiative." § 57.105(1),

Fla. Stat. This statute, though somewhat underused by our courts, affords judges

the authority to immediately impose significant penalties for bringing unfounded

litigation. Perhaps more significant is this Court's recent (and appropriate)

reaffirmation of a trial court's inherent authority to sanction litigants—specifically

attorneys—who engage in bad faith and abusive practice. See Moakely v.

Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 223 (Fla. 2002), citing United States Savings Bank v.

Pittman, 80 Fla. 423, 86 So. 567, 572 (1920) (sanctioning attorney for acting in

bad faith in a mortgage foreclosure sale). 2

2
The potential for sanctions is in addition to the significant economic deterrence
to bringing unauthorized foreclosure actions. Presuit costs such as title searches
and identification of tenants and/or subordinate lienors, the escalating filing fees
and costs of service (particularly publication service and the concomitant cost of
diligent search if the mortgagor no longer resides in the collateral) significantly
raise the cost of filing a suit in error.

{O1456895;1} 6
II. REQUIRING VERIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE
FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS IMPLEMENTS PUBLIC POLICY
WITHIN THE LEGISLATURE'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

The Task Force Report giving rise to the proposed amendment clearly

speaks to a public policy concern unrelated to the procedural concerns of the

courts. The stated purpose—to prevent the filing of multiple suits on the same

note—is clearly a matter of public policy rather than one of court procedure.

Requiring verification of a residential mortgage foreclosure complaint imposes a

condition precedent to access to courts that exceeds the procedural scope of the

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110. In situations in which verification of

complaints or petitions is established as a threshold requirement for pursuing an

action, that requirement is imposed by the legislature. See, e.g., § 702.10, Fla. Stat.

(requiring verification of mortgage foreclosure complaint where plaintiff elects

Order to Show Cause procedure.) If public policy favors setting an evidentiary

threshold for access to courts, the legislature must exercise its policy-making

authority.

The only other rule of civil procedure which imposes the duty to verify a

petition is a petition for temporary injunction. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610. The rationale

for requiring verification there is clear: The petition itself and any supporting

affidavits constitute the evidence supporting the requested temporary injunction.

The court's decision is made solely on the evidentiary quality of the documents

{O1456895;1} 7
before it. That is not the case here. Verification of the foreclosure complaint will

not relieve the plaintiff seeking to foreclose a residential mortgage of the burden of

proving by competent and substantial evidence that it is the holder of the note

secured by the mortgage and entitled to enforce the mortgagor's obligation.

Verification adds little protection for the mortgagor and, realistically, will

not significantly diminish the burden on the courts. The amendment is not needed

or helpful.

CONCLUSION

The Florida Bankers Association recognized the hard work and the laudable

goals of the Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure

Cases. However, it appears that in the urge to find new ways to address the crisis

facing mortgagors and mortgagees as well as the court system, the Task Force

fashioned a new and ineffectual rule while ignoring the panoply of significant and

substantive weapons already provided by Florida law. The Florida Bankers

Association respectfully requests that this Honorable Court decline to adopt the

proposed amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110.

{O1456895;1} 8
Respectfully submitted,

Florida Bankers Association

___________________________
Alejandro M. Sanchez Virginia B. Townes, Esquire
President and CEO Florida Bar No.: 361879
Florida Bankers Association AKERMAN, SENTERFITT
1001 Thomasville Road, Suite 201 420 South Orange Avenue
Suite 201 Suite 1200 (32801)
Tallahassee, FL 32303 Post Office Box 231
Phone: (850) 224-2265 Orlando, FL 32802
Fax: (850) 224-2423 Phone: (407) 423-4000
[email protected] Fax: (407) 843-6610

[email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

comments have been served on The Honorable Jennifer D. Bailey, Task Force

Chair, 73 W. Flagler Street, Suite 1307, Miami, Florida 33130-4764, this 28th day

of September, 2009.

___________________________
Virginia Townes, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 361879

{O1456895;1} 9
Exhibit 3
Jamie Heron - Preliminary Review

1. I previously worked as a wholesale mortgage broker approved with many of the largest banks. I
am familiar with their internal original document collateral tracking systems, including the
related Countrywide and Bank of America en��es in this I have reviewed tens of thousands of
foreclosure filings throughout the country.

2. The loan at some point was serviced and/or owned by Countrywide, which was later purchased
by Bank of America (BOA). The foreclosure trustee was Recontrust, an en�ty owned by
Countrywide/BOA.
3. At the beginning of the financial crisis of 2008, evidence began to expose that Countrywide
destroyed or never obtained, the original promissory notes for many of the loans it originated or
purchased and placed into securi�zed trusts.
4. Trust insurers and investors in those trusts began countless lawsuits alleging that this made the
loans defec�ve and caused them losses through the inability to foreclose and/or the delay and
increase costs required to prove ownership of the loans in order to foreclose.
5. Other investors lawsuits alleged that the loans were never part of the trusts at all. They alleged
that a cri�cal element to crea�ng the trusts was the inclusion of the proper�es into the trusts
through ownership endorsements. The trust agreements had specific rules that required the
endorsements placed on the notes and the notes taken into custody and tracked.
6. The billions in lawsuits (s�ll ongoing today) brought by insurers and investors, further exposed
that not only were the original notes never obtained, destroyed or defec�vely endorsed, but
that Bank of America implemented a scheme to cover it up.
7. Bank of America, Countrywide and Recontrust employees eventually were deposed as the result
of compiling li�ga�on brought by homeowners working pro-se and foreclosure defense
atorneys. The employees tes�fied that a�er Bank of America became aware of the defec�ve
documents, it implemented a scheme to illegally endorse up to 20,000 notes a day through the
use of rooms filled with employees using rubber stamps.
8. The scheme was illegal because the stamps were applied using the names of the defunct
Countrywide and former Countrywide employees. This was a form of illegal back-da�ng. It was
to make it appear as if the notes were endorsed years earlier by those par�es, and therefore
legally placed in the trusts.
9. Recontrust employee tes�mony conflicted with former Countrywide and Bank of America
employees, as to how and when the endorsements were placed on the notes.
10. Homeowner foreclosure li�ga�on further exposed that most of the “notes” that were illegally
endorsed, were likely not original notes at all. They were printed copies of notes, made to
appear as if they were the wet-ink originals signed by the homeowners.
11. The evidence of this that I witnessed in countless cases na�onwide is that endorsements were
not present on earlier filed promissory notes, but appeared later in thousands of newly filed
foreclosures. In many cases the notes were irreconcilable, proving by visual inspec�on alone
that at least one of the notes was a forgery.
12. BOA internal tracking logs filed in li�ga�on, further showed that “original” notes were sent to
third-party companies such as “SourceCorp” right before foreclosure li�ga�on, but then were
returned by the company with newly placed endorsements and barcode s�ckers.
13. The 7712 Silver Lake Road promissory note copies evidence these same atributes. It is a forgery.
14. A 7712 Silver Lake note copy filed in a “Claims Reg” in 2013 does not show the
Countrywide/BOA barcode tracking s�cker used to track original loan documents which should
be evident at the botom of the first page. It shows an ownership endorsement from Impac to
“blank” on a separate page.

• Select Por�olio Services later produced a copy they claimed was a “True and Correct” copy of
the note in 2021. The copy appeared with a barcode s�cker not previously seen on the earlier
copy filed in 2013.
• This copy also does not include the addi�onal page showing the endorsement to “Blank” seen
on the 2013 copy provided as the original.
• As a former Countrywide approved wholesale broker, I am familiar with their internal processes.
At the �me Countrywide was involved with the loan in 2009, it would have applied the barcode
tracking s�cker as soon as it originated or purchased the loan, if it had the original promissory
note. It did not have the original 7712 Silver Lake note.
• This note was part of the Bank of America illegal recrea�on of promissory notes scheme. The
barcode s�cker appears later, as is the case in thousands of other foreclosure note filings I have
seen, only a�er Bank of America’s admited implementa�on of the illegal promissory note re-
crea�on scheme.
• In two separately filed earlier copies of the note that do evidence the endorsement, the
endorsements that are supposed to be mirror images of each other, are not. They are
posi�oned differently on the page. One is level, the other is not. This evidences that at least one
was a forgery, but likely both.

• The original note had an “Interest-Only Addendum”. That addendum was a permanent part of
the note found on the note signed at closing. It states it “is incorporated into and intended to
form a part of the “Adjustable Rate Note”. This addendum is not part of the copy provided by
Select Por�olio Servicing purported as the “True and Correct” copy.
• A modifica�on of the promissory note was executed. Any modifica�on to a promissory note
requires the original executed modifica�on documents to be atached to the original wet-ink
signed promissory note it is modifying. The modifica�on documents do not appear on the later
copies of the promissory notes provided.

• The addendum and modifica�on original documents would always travel with the original wet-
ink note because they became part of the original note when executed. None of the copies
provided by SPS show them.
• The original promissory note is required to modify the note and for other loss mi�ga�on
op�ons. The en�re course of dealing for years, was changed to the detriment of the Whites,
when these en��es offered loan modifica�ons that required the original note, knowing they did
not have it. A printer paper dummy-note forgery cannot be legally modified.
• The barcode s�cker is part of a robust tracking system used by Countrywide and later Bank of
America. The barcode placed on the document SPS is falsely represen�ng as a true and correct
 copy of the original 7712 Silver Lake promissory note, would have corresponding informa�on in
the Bank of America system. Countless combina�ons of Bank of America system screens exist
that would show the travels of the promissory note, when it was endorsed, who it was endorsed
by, what foreclosure firm possessed it, why, and when requests rela�ng to the original note
were made by servicing, document custodian, or third-party foreclosure atorneys.
• These records are easily obtainable by SPS or BOA and provided in discovery in BOA related
cases na�onwide, as part of their legacy document tracking system. They should be obtained in
discovery in this case.

Jamie Heron

__________________